hrotha wrote:Look, would you guys find it odd if a rider pulled to defend his 50th place in the GC? Then we're haggling over the price, as the quote goes.

You don't get points for 50th place.

People shouldn't blame Gesink, they should blame the system. Riders are now pretty much required to get WT points to get a new contract. We see guys getting bought in from all over the place to make up the difference so of course Gesink is going to look to maximise his points and, therefore, his worth to his team. He also has to satisfy sponsors etc. and so on. I understand why people don't like this kind of racing, but I think a more appropriate saying would be:

Zinoviev Letter wrote:Well, yes, but surely that goes for Nibali too. I'm not sure why attacking to move up in the top 10 is much different from responding to an attack to prevent yourself moving down in the top 10. It's all riders fighting for the same positions.

Surely there's a big difference in attacking to improve your position and defending a 9th or whatever place in the standings? The first is pro-active, and is generally seen as positive action. Another big difference is that Nibali only affects himself, while Gesink was dragging an entire group with him.

completely agree with youMoreover,we can even see gesink's strategy as a positive "force" because he responded to the attack instead of doing nothing. It was not pro-active but it was "active"

Gesinks knows that he cannot gain any more positions in the GC and he's doing anything in his power to prevent losing positions.The end justifies the means.It's like the difference between attacking and defensive football. nothing is wrong with def.football as long as it brings you results. Being 8th for Gesink it's like being 1-0 against an attacking team,now it's time do some catenaccio

Flamin wrote:I completely understand why Gesink did that, but I do wonder if the Dutchies on here had similar sympathy for JVDB back in the day.

Of course JVDB wasn't coming back from injuries that made him and cycling fans/media question if he'd ever get back to the level he was prior. The only way for him to know that he's on the right track is to consistently, through the course of the 3 weeks of a grand tour, compete and especially climb with the elite gc contenders. Going off in breaks pursuing stage wins wouldn't necessarily prove that.

Zinoviev Letter wrote:Well, yes, but surely that goes for Nibali too. I'm not sure why attacking to move up in the top 10 is much different from responding to an attack to prevent yourself moving down in the top 10. It's all riders fighting for the same positions.

Surely there's a big difference in attacking to improve your position and defending a 9th or whatever place in the standings? The first is pro-active, and is generally seen as positive action. Another big difference is that Nibali only affects himself, while Gesink was dragging an entire group with him.

The only difference is that fans tend to sympathise more with the guy who is attacking. Nibali, a rider I generally like by the way, is a Tour winner, in fact a winner of all three GTs and he is attacking so as to move up in minor top 10 placings! That is, he is placing value on the exact thing that Gesink is getting slated for valuing and with far less justification.

He's a multi GT winner, whether he finishes 8th or 6th or whatever will make very little material difference to his career or his potential earnings. While for Gesink, who has never come close to winning a GT, it will make a very significant difference to his future prospects. Gesink would be a fool not to defend 7th spot. I don't like that cycling is set up in such a way that failing to defend a minor GC place in the Tour would by the height of stupidity, but it is set up that way.

Zinoviev Letter wrote:Well, yes, but surely that goes for Nibali too. I'm not sure why attacking to move up in the top 10 is much different from responding to an attack to prevent yourself moving down in the top 10. It's all riders fighting for the same positions.

Surely there's a big difference in attacking to improve your position and defending a 9th or whatever place in the standings? The first is pro-active, and is generally seen as positive action. Another big difference is that Nibali only affects himself, while Gesink was dragging an entire group with him.

The only difference is that fans tend to sympathise more with the guy who is attacking. Nibali, a rider I generally like by the way, is a Tour winner, in fact a winner of all three GTs and he is attacking so as to move up in minor top 10 placings! That is, he is placing value on the exact thing that Gesink is getting slated for valuing and with far less justification.

He's a multi GT winner, whether he finishes 8th or 6th or whatever will make very little material difference to his career or his potential earnings. While for Gesink, who has never come close to winning a GT, it will make a very significant difference to his future prospects. Gesink would be a fool not to defend 7th spot. I don't like that cycling is set up in such a way that failing to defend a minor GC place in the Tour would by the height of stupidity, but it is set up that way.

Major bullshit.

If Nibali is trying to still win the Tour he still needs those seconds

Zinoviev Letter wrote:Well, yes, but surely that goes for Nibali too. I'm not sure why attacking to move up in the top 10 is much different from responding to an attack to prevent yourself moving down in the top 10. It's all riders fighting for the same positions.

Surely there's a big difference in attacking to improve your position and defending a 9th or whatever place in the standings? The first is pro-active, and is generally seen as positive action. Another big difference is that Nibali only affects himself, while Gesink was dragging an entire group with him.

The only difference is that fans tend to sympathise more with the guy who is attacking. Nibali, a rider I generally like by the way, is a Tour winner, in fact a winner of all three GTs and he is attacking so as to move up in minor top 10 placings! That is, he is placing value on the exact thing that Gesink is getting slated for valuing and with far less justification.

He's a multi GT winner, whether he finishes 8th or 6th or whatever will make very little material difference to his career or his potential earnings. While for Gesink, who has never come close to winning a GT, it will make a very significant difference to his future prospects. Gesink would be a fool not to defend 7th spot. I don't like that cycling is set up in such a way that failing to defend a minor GC place in the Tour would by the height of stupidity, but it is set up that way.

Major bullshit.

If Nibali is trying to still win the Tour he still needs those seconds

So, Gesink should not defend his position because somebody else is supposedly still trying to win the Tour? In that case, let's just put Froomey, Quintana, Valverde, TJ, Contador and Nibbles on the road and let them duke it out. No need for others to interfere with the major GC guys, because defending your position is just lame and stupid right?

Barguil riding like crazy to be the top placed French guy after Gallopin fell behind is oke, but Gesink defending his 7th in the overall is weak? That just doesn't make any sense. All these guys want to be as high on the GC as they possibly can. And they'll try and achieve that by attacking when possible and defending when necessary. If you don't like it go watch an individual sport.

hrotha wrote:Look, would you guys find it odd if a rider pulled to defend his 50th place in the GC? Then we're haggling over the price, as the quote goes.

You don't get points for 50th place.

People shouldn't blame Gesink, they should blame the system. Riders are now pretty much required to get WT points to get a new contract. We see guys getting bought in from all over the place to make up the difference so of course Gesink is going to look to maximise his points and, therefore, his worth to his team. He also has to satisfy sponsors etc. and so on. I understand why people don't like this kind of racing, but I think a more appropriate saying would be:

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Really? Please explain to me how WT points matter when there are at least as many spots for WT teams as there are teams who want to be WT.

Points didn't matter last transfer. They won't matter the upcoming one either.

If Nibali is trying to still win the Tour he still needs those seconds

If Nibali believes that he can win the Tour from 8th place and 8 minutes down, with all of Froome, Contador and Quintana minutes ahead, then he is as thick as condensed pig faeces.

He is not that thick and he does not believe he can win the Tour. He thinks he can put a bit of respectability on the margin and style of his defeat, no more. He knows the win is long gone and he knew it the first time he was dropped like a stone. He is competing for minor places, just as Gesink is.

hrotha wrote:Look, would you guys find it odd if a rider pulled to defend his 50th place in the GC? Then we're haggling over the price, as the quote goes.

You don't get points for 50th place.

People shouldn't blame Gesink, they should blame the system. Riders are now pretty much required to get WT points to get a new contract. We see guys getting bought in from all over the place to make up the difference so of course Gesink is going to look to maximise his points and, therefore, his worth to his team. He also has to satisfy sponsors etc. and so on. I understand why people don't like this kind of racing, but I think a more appropriate saying would be:

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Really? Please explain to me how WT points matter when there are at least as many spots for WT teams as there are teams who want to be WT.

Points didn't matter last transfer. They won't matter the upcoming one either.

hrotha wrote:Look, would you guys find it odd if a rider pulled to defend his 50th place in the GC? Then we're haggling over the price, as the quote goes.

You don't get points for 50th place.

People shouldn't blame Gesink, they should blame the system. Riders are now pretty much required to get WT points to get a new contract. We see guys getting bought in from all over the place to make up the difference so of course Gesink is going to look to maximise his points and, therefore, his worth to his team. He also has to satisfy sponsors etc. and so on. I understand why people don't like this kind of racing, but I think a more appropriate saying would be:

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Really? Please explain to me how WT points matter when there are at least as many spots for WT teams as there are teams who want to be WT.

Points didn't matter last transfer. They won't matter the upcoming one either.

Remind me again what assumption is the mother of?

And how many of the riders' on the team points count? Every single one of them?

Zinoviev Letter wrote:The only difference is that fans tend to sympathise more with the guy who is attacking. Nibali, a rider I generally like by the way, is a Tour winner, in fact a winner of all three GTs and he is attacking so as to move up in minor top 10 placings! That is, he is placing value on the exact thing that Gesink is getting slated for valuing and with far less justification.

He's a multi GT winner, whether he finishes 8th or 6th or whatever will make very little material difference to his career or his potential earnings. While for Gesink, who has never come close to winning a GT, it will make a very significant difference to his future prospects. Gesink would be a fool not to defend 7th spot. I don't like that cycling is set up in such a way that failing to defend a minor GC place in the Tour would by the height of stupidity, but it is set up that way.

Excellent post. I agree 100%.

If I was in Gesink's position, I would've done the same thing. The end result was worth the effort. Those guys are so far from victory that GC is the only battle they have going. That being said, I can understand why some wouldn't value a 7th place position as being meaningful.

if a seventh or a eight place (top 10) with 200 riders in the competition aren't meaningful it follows that roughly 190 riders are useless...let's make a tour where there are only 3-4 riders

.........useless is going from 150th to 149th,there's a big difference between 7th and 8th, It's a matter of personal prideBoth Gesink and Nibali are fighting for something. The value of that "something" is set by them

46&twoWheels wrote:if a seventh or a eight place (top 10) with 200 riders in the competition aren't meaningful it follows that roughly 190 riders are useless...let's make a tour where there are only 3-4 riders

.........useless is going from 150th to 149th,there's a big difference between 7th and 8th, It's a matter of personal prideBoth Gesink and Nibali are fighting for something. The value of that "something" is set by them

The general disapproval of defending minor GC places does not stem from the view that only the GC win or podium are important and nothing else about the race matters. It stems from the view that riders who are no longer in the running for the win should be fighting for stage wins or even taking big risks to take a small chance of moving back into contention for the win rather than forgoing any chance at a stage win to protect 7th. Or

As a fan, I generally agree with this disapproval - incentivising the protection of minor GC places incentivises defensive riding, while incentivising stage hunting in theory creates more exciting racing. My only quibble is with people who blame individual riders for responding to structural incentives. The value they place on minor GC placings isn't set by them or their personal pride. It's set primarily by cold, hard economics and secondarily by a culture in the sport that sees a rider who can finish in the Tour top 10 as more important than a rider who can win a stage.

Of course I prefer it when riders look for a stage win or a GC win. However, with 21 days of racing and 3 jerseys a maximum of 24 out of the 200 individual riders can actually get a win. The others either ride for a second place or ride for somebody else. A grand tour is a test of endurance and recuperation. That is why certain riders who are well equiped to win smaller stage races don't do well in a GT. After the many miles a GT is long, a top 10 position is regarded as a great feat by many teams and sponsors. For riders a top 10 finish seems to be just as important, as only apparent GC guys who have lost sight of a top 10 classification seem to be interested in stage wins. We fans might not enjoy a rider protecting his GC when we deem it meaningless (let's say places 6 to 198), for a rider it may be one of the few chances they get. If you are not the fastest sprinter, not the best climber, not a puncheur et cetera but you do have great endurance and recuperate fast, you still have a chance of a top 10 GC and that is the best that rider can do. No point in not respecting a rider doing the best to his own ability.

I doubt that. Nibali since his bad day took:1 minute because of Gesink flatting20 seconds on Mende (after attacking almost collapsing back to the group w/ Gesink)28 seconds on Manse mainly because of the downhill and nobody really willing to ride in the group behind.

I have yet to see if Nibali can sustain a serious effort on a longer hard climb this Tour. Very sceptical.